Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Saturday, July 31, 2010

Congressional Budget Office: Over the past few years, U.S. government debt held by the public has grown rapidly -- to the point that, compared with the total output of the economy, it is now higher than it has ever been except during the period around World War II. The recent increase in debt has been the result of three sets of factors: an imbalance between federal revenues and spending that predates the recession and the recent turmoil in financial markets, sharply lower revenues and elevated spending that derive directly from those economic conditions, and the costs of various federal policies implemented in response to the conditions.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

paneocon

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

I never trust the CBO. This is surprising though, they are usually very optimistic.

The Summer of Recovery

It just gets better and better....

"In addition, if the payment of interest on the extra debt was financed by imposing higher marginal tax rates, those rates would discourage work and saving and further reduce output. "

Not true! DanniNomics said so.

Move to Taiwan, wait a few months, and VOILA! you're exempt from paying U.S. income taxes:

VERNONOMICS

AU
Quick aside . . .

Sorry I didn't get back to thank you for posting the teabage sign I was looking for. I'm on the road (currently in Georgia) and headed north. If it's not in the dead of night and IF you have a listed number, I'll try to give you a call when I pass through Tennessee.

BTW . . . Goatman's rig is going to Nigeria. Scary stuff, he says.

#4 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-07-30 06:04 AM | Reply | Flag: HAS NOTHING TO SAY RELEVANT TO THE THREAD

I'm exempt from U.S. taxes?

Funny, but I pay an accountant in Memphis and he sends me a tax statement every quarter showing how much I pay in state and federal taxes (plus some local fees. Like any city run by Democrats, Memphis punishes small businesses for creating jobs).

Your stupidity aside, it's really cute how you leap to Danni's defense, even though she is completely wrong about economics and taxes . . . well, maybe it exemplifies your stupidity.

"In addition, if the payment of interest on the extra debt was financed by imposing higher marginal tax rates, those rates would discourage work and saving and further reduce output."

Yeah cuz no one worked hard before Ronnie Raygun made working worthwhile. No one ever profited from the stock market until capital gains were cut to 15% max. Poppycock and you know it as well as I do Vernon. Of course there is an outer limit on tax rates but we are no where near it. The CBO was not talking about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and actually their remarks make the tax cut for those earning less than $200,000 make even more sense.

#4 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

AMERICANUNITYNOMICS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Any news that reflects badly on democrats is incorrect. Any news that shows that Bush was at fault is correct.

an abnormal condition of the mind, and is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality". People suffering from AMERICANUNITYNOMICS are described as idiots.

Of course there is an outer limit on tax rates but we are no where near it.
#7 | Posted by danni

News Flash, DR today danni has acknowledged the truth of the Laffer curves. Still hates the rich but willing to acknowledge that at some point taxes on rich will harm economy.

Everybody's taxes should go up, by a lot. America wanted Obama, America should start paying for it. Tens of millions of Americans thought they were getting something for nothing. And that is never true.

"America wanted Obama, America should start paying for it."

America wanted Bush, too. And back then, you were against America paying for it.

I saw a statistic that really stuck with me... though most are forgetful.

If we gave the 8.5 million unemployed in America the 37 Trillion dollars they would each receive $400,000.00. and that wouldn't jump start the economy? The banksters got away clean and the depression still can come down in full force and you have no protection and all you will get is a so-sorry.

www.youtube.com

RON PAUL 2012

www.youtube.com

"In addition, if the payment of interest on the extra debt was financed by imposing higher marginal tax rates, those rates would discourage work and saving and further reduce output. "

Not true! DanniNomics said so.

#3 | Posted by vernon

Geez! How did this country ever get by, much less build it's magnificent middle class, under those oppressive top marginal tax rates between 1932 and 1986?

www.truthandpolitics.org

Reaganomics says it can't happen. It must of been a fluke.

This is impossible. Growing debt means fiscal bliss, not crisis. 90% percent of economists who love the Federal Reserve told me so.

Go back to your cave and start counting your gold bars, CBO! This government has no place for doom and gloomers.

America wanted Bush, too. And back then, you were against America paying for it.

#11 | Posted by Danforth

He was FOR tax cuts then. Ever since Obama's election he's done a 180 on everything.

Now:

Everybody's taxes should go up, by a lot. America wanted Obama, America should start paying for it. Tens of millions of Americans thought they were getting something for nothing. And that is never true.

#10 | Posted by rightisright


(RiR didn't want us paying for it when Bush/GOP were amassing this massive debt. Borrowing was better):

Because it's more efficient to borrow the money at 4.1% for ten years, than to present a tax bill on the productive economy.

Posted by rightisright


Bush era:

You make the common mistake of believing that tax-and-spend is preferable to borrow-and-spend. Usually it isn't, and it especially isn't now, when 10-year borrowing rates are at 4.2%

Posted by rightisright (when a black Dem wasn't in the WH)

By the way, I'm sometimes amused to hear about the emergency that's coming from federal debt.

Posted by RightIsRight (2008)

I'm ambivalent about the bailout. Suits me fine to have people who borrowed for too much house thrown out of their homes, and the mortgage companies go under. No difference to me, and everyone learns a lesson.

RightIsRight - Sept. 2008 (which are now magically 'Timmy's' bailouts)

Surplus budgets are only a good idea if they're used in productive ways--cutting taxes, or expanding the net worth of the country, such as by building out infrastructure, new energy sources, things like that.


In the Bush era borrowing for infrastructure and tax cuts were GREAT! - in your own words! Oh, but you whine, whine, whine when Stimulus money is used to do just that. Hell, your GOP buddies are even against small business jobs bills. Can't make sense of your kind.

Funny how things change so radically when a black Dem moved into the WH.

BTW Bush was borrowing for Iraq's infrastructure, not ours.

"You make the common mistake of believing that tax-and-spend is preferable to borrow-and-spend. Usually it isn't, and it especially isn't now, when 10-year borrowing rates are at 4.2%"

You'd think he'd be for even MORE borrowing since current 10yr rates are under 3%.

You'd think he'd be for even MORE borrowing since current 10yr rates are under 3%.

I've quit assuming right wingers have memories, consciences, or core beliefs.

stim-u in the ass.

www.youtube.com

do you understanding hyperinflation yet?

Funny how things change so radically when a black Dem moved into the WH.

#17 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-07-31 02:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Funny how things change so radically when a liberal Dem moved into the WH.

There; fixed it for you. Or were you intentionally injecting the race thing to demonize your opposition? There's a lot of that going around; may be a key strategy for the mid term election.

my bad. here is the right post.

MELTUP.

www.youtube.com

#22 | Posted by MACV1972

Orange, Yellow, Blue, or black, when a Dem took the WH suddenly everything right wingers were for all throughout Bush's Presidency were suddenly BAD BAD BAD BAD! .... and, magically, all Obama's fault too - an inherited economy in shambles, the largest debt in the history of mankind, systemic deficits thanks to the GOP policies of unfunded tax cuts and programs that nearly double the annual budget.

Sorry, I can't attribute so much hate for Obama to just his being a Dem.

By the way, I'm sometimes amused to hear about the emergency that's coming from federal debt.

Posted by RightIsRight (2008)

Right wingers can't remember what they said up to 18 months ago, when they never bitched for 8 years as the debt and deficits mounted and, as some have, claimed borrowing was a GOOD thing. NOW they whine it's someone elses fault.

Right wingers are even now claiming Bush's top deficit was $400 Billion. They're only off by $1,000,000,000,000 (1 Trillion - FY 2009). WTF did they expect as Bush/GOP policies borrowed us to the moon while they fought multi-trillion dollar wars, passed multi-trillion dollar tax cuts, and passed multi-trillion dollar programs?

Reminds me of the PNAC idiots who claimed Iraq would be a short war in which we'd be greeted as liberators. Have any of them said "I was wrong"? Nope. They're still getting paid to appear on FoxNews spouting the next line of bullshit.

"To restore investors' confidence, policymakers would probably need to enact spending cuts or tax increases more drastic and painful than those that would have been necessary had the adjustments come sooner."

I think what they are saying is that if Bush and the Republicans hadn't cut taxes so drastically and started two wars at the same time we might not need to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire but we probably also need to repeal the Reagan tax cuts. That's how it reads to me, I think it's pretty clear.

we might only need to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire but now since we let them cause so much debt we probably also need to repeal the Reagan tax cuts. We got to pay down debt somehow and it ain't going to be our Social Security or Medicare that goes to pay. We've paid seperate taxes for those things all these years and have a surplus owed to those programs, no the money needs to come from income taxes, capital gains taxes, etc. Let those who have piled up billions while the people became poorer can now ante up.

Apparently, AU closes his eyes when the Democrats do what the Republicans do. A Democrat holy favorite is SS, Medicare and Medicaid, for which they proudly take credit. Those programs now consume All of federal income tax revenue. Soon Obamacare will bring federal debt to another level. The only difference between the two fucking parties is spending priorities. For at we get both; welfare and warfare. At this late stage, there is no way in hell can a financial collapse be avoided.

I think what they are saying is that if Bush and the Republicans hadn't cut taxes so drastically and started two wars at the same time we might not need to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire but we probably also need to repeal the Reagan tax cuts. That's how it reads to me, I think it's pretty clear.

Here's another one whose blind in the left eye, Danni. It's always not enough revenue. It's never too much spending. In the face of runaway deficits, Obama had no business starting another welfare program.

Fuck it. When the feds go broke, as surely they will, that's when they'll cut off the something-for-nothing parasites that infest this country.

it is now higher than it has ever been except during the period around World War II.

Well we are spending more than we did on WW2 so what do you expect?... fucking neocon shitheads... your big fucking ideas to rule the world.. oh right blame it on domestic spending.. fucking republiclown morons.

Well we are spending more than we did on WW2 so what do you expect?... fucking neocon shitheads... your big fucking ideas to rule the world.. oh right blame it on domestic spending.. fucking republiclown morons.
#30 | Posted by RightisTrite

Fair enough. The Right wants to rule the world, but also, the left wants to rule the US to the last dollar.

Another one with a blind left eye. It's both! Domestic AND foreign spending, dipshit!

Well, I've picked up quite the troll or two. Interesting.

It's obvious to everyone, I think, that I'm just a racist scumbag. After all, if I was insouciant three years ago about debt to GDP of 65%, but am now gravely concerned that it's 95%, it must be because a black man is now running the government. And if the $160 billion deficit in 2007 didn't bother me much, but today's $1,400,000,000,000 deficits do--with trillion dollar-plus deficits as far as the eye can see--it can only be because Barack Obama is black.

Lots of racism going around these days. Lots of people who weren't terribly concerned with big deficits a few years ago suddenly became so when the deficits became titanic. But that can't be because anyone can read a chart, or even our POTUS's forecasted deficits going out 10 years; it's because our accountant-in-chief is a black man.

Lots of people who weren't terribly concerned with big deficits a few years ago suddenly became so when the deficits became titanic.

Bush's proposed budget for 2009 - proposed in 2008 - forecast a deficit of $1.2 Trillion. Ended up being over $1.4 Trillion. Not a peep from you. Did you not expect the mushrooming debt would create massive obligations every year?

You didn't notice the budgets rising year after year throughout the 2000's? Falling GDP and revenues?

I'm pointing out the RiR of Bush's era is a far, far cry from the whining you do about that which you supported wholeheartedly during Bush's term while this mess was snowballing ... so obviously everyone but right wingers could see it. Or choose to see it, more correctly.

Fair enough. The Right wants to rule the world, but also, the left wants to rule the US to the last dollar.

Domestic spending has more tangible returns than dropping bombs that vaporize on foreign soil... not to mention the human toll... let me see... bridges and highways... schools... health care... or a hole in the Afghanistan desert.... hmmmmm.... education... technology... or level a building in Iraq....

At least pre WW2 and during WW2 people were rationing... being taxed... buying war bonds... to help pay for the war... and building infrastructure... to make home a better place... any discussion about domestic spending and the right starts bawling like a dying calf in a hail storm... no wonder it was the last war "won".

The fucking right dug holes in foreign deserts... to dump trillions of dollars in... and now it matters... fuck you... we have spent so much money there.. there is no way for the war to pay for itself when we "rebuild" for those grateful people over there.

#34 | Posted by RightisTrite

Domestic spending has more tangible returns than dropping bombs that vaporize on foreign soil... not to mention the human toll... let me see... bridges and highways... schools... health care... or a hole in the Afghanistan desert.... hmmmmm.... education... technology... or level a building in Iraq....

Government has no means to determine whether its spending is productive or wasted. Boondoggles are rarely extinguished, they usually get increased subsidies. Spending priorities are dictated by political priorities, not consumer priorities. Government can provide the social system for the production of wealth, but it cannot directly produce wealth. Only a free exchange and profit and loss system can do that. No private business could ever hope to run deficits and debt like that and stay in business.

Another way to say it, government is dependent on surplus produced by the market. It cannot replace the market, but it can displace the market. Which is why our economy is in a long term decline. If you learned economics from the MSM or college, you learned wrong.

Orange, Yellow, Blue, or black, when a Dem took the WH suddenly everything right wingers were for all throughout Bush's Presidency were suddenly BAD BAD BAD BAD! .... and, magically, all Obama's fault too - an inherited economy in shambles, the largest debt in the history of mankind, systemic deficits thanks to the GOP policies of unfunded tax cuts and programs that nearly double the annual budget.

Sorry, I can't attribute so much hate for Obama to just his being a Dem.

#24 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-07-31 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, you've ruled out his liberal agenda, admitted commitment to transfer of wealth, expansion of government and extension of government control/influence in health care, finance, and plans for the energy and environmental arenas...and settled on ethnicity as the obvious basis for people opposing/disliking (and yes some even hating) Obama? Might you be projecting a tad from your own mindset?

Geez! How did this country ever get by, much less build it's magnificent middle class, under those oppressive top marginal tax rates between 1932 and 1986?

#14 | Posted by Whatsleft

Yaaaaaaaaaa.. We realy were cookin between 1932 and 1942. Do you realy know what the tax rates wer between WWII and the end of Viet Nam? Doyou have any idea what the rates were when JFK got killed by LBJ?

dems run everything and they're an unhappy, angry and miserable lot. full of rage and hate. fact is, its all collapsing around the dems and their incompetent leader. come november, across this country, dems will be taken to the wood shed and that ass is gonna be wore out. plain and simple.

dems run everything and they're an unhappy, angry and miserable lot. full of rage and hate. fact is, its all collapsing around the dems and their incompetent leader. come november, across this country, dems will be taken to the wood shed and that ass is gonna be wore out. plain and simple.

#38 | Posted by outbacker

It's the cancervatard shitstains that blow up federal buildings, get into shootouts on their way to gun down the folks at the ACLU and threaten to kill judges when they don't get their way. Speaking of wore out asses, has Chimpy W. Bush's cavernous turd cutter recovered from the repeated poundings from Gannon?

Rei, you are talking about the weather underground. That is what they did.

#37 | Posted by Sniper

Did you even look at the fucking link?

The higher tax rates from 1932-1942 helped fund the escape from the depression, a massive war effort, and a GI Bill that built the foundation for what is now commonly understood as the modern middle class. The higher taxes as they persisted through the early 80's helped continue to fund the social and infrastructure advantages that the U.S. maintained through most of that time. The higher taxes even funded the arms buildup that helped us win the cold war, though I'm sure you'd have a hard time getting Reagan to acknowledge that. The degradation of the middle class, and of the standard of living that it implies, significantly began with the economic policies of the Reagan era.

Among other things, a return to pre-Reagan tax levels will be necessary for this country to have any hope of a sustainable recovery.

What's amazing, is how the nations top 3 economists Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker, and Ben Bernanke, did not raise many red flags about debt or housing during the Bush presidency, yet under Obama, their raising so many red flags you need sunglasses.

Yet the left attacks anyone for criticizing Obama for being partisin.

Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker, and Ben Bernanke

I hear the term self retorting retort,and I'm not sure what that means,but I'm pretty sure you just covered it there,LOL

#44 | Posted by bruceaz
I hear the term self retorting retort,and I'm not sure what that means,but I'm pretty sure you just covered it there,LOL

-----------------
I didn't do a search so I could be wrong, but you can do one. I don't remember any of them during the Bush years saying that the housing buble was threat to the overall economy, and they weren't going balistic over the national debt either.

Do a search and prove me wrong!

What this argument boils down to is this: those who are concerned about the debt are more concerned about what might be the plight of their heirs than they are about those who are suffering today. It is if they are are crusing around in a boat with one life jacket; safe from harm. They encounter a stranger who is drowning but refuse to share the life jacket because some day someone on their boat might need it.

fed, what you are saying is that our grand childern should pay for the fun we are having now. That is one fucked-up idea.

What I am saying is not everyone is having fun. Many are in very difficult, maybe even desperate situations.

I'm shocked!
Shocked, I tell you!

Right on the money (literally):

The Bush tax cuts remain the single largest cause of America's structural deficit -- that is, the deficit not caused by the collapse in tax revenues when the economy goes into recession. The Bush administration inherited budget surpluses from the Clinton administration. What turned these into deficits, even before the recession? There were three fundamental new costs -- the tax cuts, the prescription-drug bill, and post-9/11 security spending (including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars). Of these the tax cuts were by far the largest, adding up to $2.3 trillion over 10 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly half the cost of all legislation enacted from 2001 to 2007 can be attributed to the tax cuts.

Those cuts are set to expire this year. The Republicans say they want to keep them all, even for those making more than $250,000 a year (less than 3 percent of Americans). They say that higher taxes will hurt the recovery. But for months now they have been arguing that the chief threat to the economy is our gargantuan debt and deficit. That's what's scaring consumers, creditors, and businesses. Given a chance to address those fears by getting serious about deficit reduction, though, they run away. Look by contrast at British Prime Minister David Cameron, a genuine fiscal conservative. To deal with his country's deficit, which in structural terms is not so different from America's, he concluded that he would have to raise taxes as well as cut spending.

The idea that the average American is overtaxed is a nice piece of populist pandering. In fact, federal taxes as a percentage of the economy are at their lowest level since the presidency of Harry Truman. Chuck Marr and Gillian Brunet of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities have calculated that a family of four at the exact middle of the income spectrum will pay only 4.6 percent of its income in taxes. Remember, almost half of the country pays no income taxes at all. The top 3 percent of Americans contribute almost 50 percent of federal income taxes.

The simple fact is this: all the Bush tax cuts were unaffordable. They were an irresponsible act of hubris enacted during an economic boom. Conservatives thought they would force us to shrink the government. But with Republicans controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, did reduced taxes cause reduced spending? No, they led to ever-increasing borrowing and a ballooning deficit.

We have one of the smallest governments among all the rich countries in the world. Yet we refuse to pay for it.

www.newsweek.com

CBO: Growing Debt Risks Fiscal Crisis

No SHIT!!!

Really?

Ok, Libs, now that the CBO says it, are you going to listen now?

Yet, as the post above yours points out, the GOP are opposed to returning tax levels to those of 2000 to reduce deficits - as they simultaneously cry about deficits they responsible for.

Furthermore, between 2001-2007 we saw a massive increase in the size of government the GOP NOW want to cut. To what? 2000 levels, when our budget was $1.9 Trillion instead of the $3.5 Trillion they GOP gave us?

As Native Americans used to say, "GOP Speaks with forked tongue".

And when cuts in spending are proposed GOP politicians say "NOT IN MY DISTRICT!!"

#50 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-08-02 11:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

So why not let ALL the Bush tax cuts expire, rather than those just for the $250k+ folks? Pair that with spending reductions and I'm on board with the tax increases. But to make a real impact, both have to occur. Yes, it'll be painful, but I'd rahter see a few years of pain that what could happen if we continue on the path we've been on for the past several years.

Rather than hammer the 'rich', why not hammer the people that enjoyed of this spending ..... the Baby Boomers. Almost every $.01 of our national debt has been gathered under the watchful eye of the Boomers. Let THEM pay for their excess.

The 'Greatest Generation' before them set them up for great things, instead, they pissed it away & spent like drunken sailors on shore leave in Thiland. Time for those who caused all this extra spending to cough up the cash to cover THEIR bill.

Tax all Boomers at 50%. Leave the generation before them alone.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable